Abstract
Despite the international interest in priority setting as an important tool for health policy, there has been comparatively little interest in the setting of research priorities. One of the few places where there has been such an interest is at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States. Under pressure from Congress to explain its priority setting process, the NIH has tried to explain the criteria and process it uses. The NIH procedure is described, and the problems created by the criteria it uses are analyzed. Although it uses the language of priority setting, it is uncertain whether it does have a real method of setting priorities. Nonetheless, despite the lack of a method, the results of its work are lauded. In the long run, however, NIH will need a more rigorous method of setting priorities.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agnew, B. (1998) NIH Embraces Citizens' Council to Cool Debates on Priorities. Science 282, 18–19.
Barsky, A. (1988) Worried Sick: Our Troubled Quest for Wellness. Boston: Little, Brown.
Callahan, D. (1998) False Hopes. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Commission on Health Research for Development (1990) Health Research: Essential Link to Equity in Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Committee on the NIH Priority-Setting Process (1998) Scientific Opportunities and Public Need: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Dresser, R. (1998) Disease Advocacy and Allocation of Federal Funds for Biomedical Research. Unpublished paper.
Ham, C. (1997) Priority Setting in Health Care: Learning from International Experience. Health Policy 42, 49–66.
The Hastings Center (1996) The Goals of Medicine: Setting New Priorities. Hastings Center Report 26(Special Supplement), S1–S27.
Marshall, E. (1997) Lobbyists Seek to Reslice NIH's Pie. Science 276, 344–346
NIH Working Group on Priority Setting (1998) Setting Research Priorities at the National Institutes of Health. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health (Publication No. 97-4265).
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research Relating to Future Interventions (1996) Investing in Health Research and Development. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Sowell, T. (1987) A Conflict of Visions. New York: William Morrow.
Spingarn, N. (1976) Heartbeat: The Politics of Health Research. Washington, D.C.: Robert B. Luce Co.
Strickland, S. (1972) Politics, Science, and Dread Disease. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Strickland, S. (1978) Research and the Health of Americans. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate (1997) Hearings on Proposed Legislation Authorizing Funds for the National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Tengs, T.O. (1998) Planning for Serendipity: A New Strategy to Prosper from Health Research. Washington, D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Callahan, D. Shaping Biomedical Research Priorities: The Case of the National Institutes of Health. Health Care Analysis 7, 115–129 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009401507982
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009401507982